RAKESH TIWARI,J. - (1.) - Heard Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS petition and the other connected petitions with it arise out of common award passed by the Labour Court, Varanasi. The questions of law and facts involved in these writ petitions are similar. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment, which shall also govern the other petitions. The facts of the case are that the workmen in this petition and the connected writ petitions raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Varanasi, challenging oral termination of their services with effect from 1st December, 1981. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Varanasi for adjudication - (a) The case of the employers in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 12123 of 1998, is that there is delay of 9 years in raising the dispute and that respondents were never appointed by the U.P. State Electricity Board and as such there was no question of giving any salary to the workman respondent No. 2. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner, that there was complete ban of appointment of the employees and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and contesting respondent No. 2. The workmen were never appointed by them and the certificate relied upon by the respondent before the Labour Court was not reliable. The officer Shri B.L. Prasad, Executive Engineer, who is said to have issued certificate, changed his stand before the Labour Court. Some time he stated that the certificates are false and some time he stated that the certificates are genuine. Therefore, the Labour Court has committed an illegality in placing reliance upon such certificates. (b) It is admitted case of respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court that he was not given any appointment letter. He was a daily wager and was paid Rs. 8/- per day when he worked as a muster roll employee/daily wager under the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution/Supply Sub-Station I, Ghazipur. (c) The Labour Court has given an award in favour of the workmen and against the employer on the basis of the certificates of working issued by the then Executive Engineer Shri B.L. Prasad. The employees had filed the certificates of their working and conduct, which is said to have been issued by Shri B.L. Prasad and proved these certificates in their oral evidence. It was alleged that letter dated 8th January, 1990 was produced on record by the workmen, issued by the Superintending Engineer to the Chief Engineer recommending and forwarding the names of muster roll employees for their regularization. The workmen also produced the report of Shri Niranjan Srivastava, Hand-writing Expert, in support of their case that the certificates of working were issued by Shri B.L. Prasad. (d) On behalf of the employers report of Hand-writing Expert Shri Vikas Srivastava was produced and the then Executive Engineer Shri B.L. Prasad also adduced evidence before the Labour Court as employer's witness. The Labour Court, after appreciation of the evidence, gave following findings : - (I) All the certificates filed by employees were issued by Shri B.L. Prasad. From these certificates it is apparent that the employees had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year, their services were terminated without compliance of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (II) The employees had not given the names of their Officers under whom they worked and also the names of other employees with whom they worked at the relevant time. But since the employer did not produce those Officers or employees under whom the workers in dispute had worked, the case of employees was disbelieved. (III) The employer had produced only Shri B.L. Srivastava and no other witness. (IV) (V) On the point of delay under reference, the Labour Court held that from the perusal of list of retrenched employees dated 1st August, 1990, it is clear that the employees, who were engaged strived Dharna till 1980 and when nothing came out of it, they raised the industrial dispute. The delay having been condoned by the Conciliation Officer, the Labour Court did not find any reason to reject the case of employees on the ground of delay. The Labour Court has held that it was clear from the record that all the employees had worked and further some of the Juniors to the workmen in question having been retained, therefore, the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are breached. Further at the time of retrenchment/termination, no notice pay, notice or retrenchment compensation was given to the employees, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (VI) The Labour Court vide it's award held that the termination of services of 27 employees was illegal and directed them to be reinstated in service with continuity. However, the Labour Court molded the relief of back wages and held that all the 27 employees shall be paid their back-wages from the date of reference of their cases at the rate of wages at the relevant time.
(3.) THE petitioner has contended that the certificates issued were doubted by the Labour Court and as such the impugned award could not be passed in favour of the workmen on the basis of its findings on such certificates, which were found to be issued fraudulently. He submits that the certificates were issued on back dates by Shri B.L. Prasad, who was a corrupt officer. He stressed that Shri B.L. Prasad was retired and enquiry against him was pending. The award given by respondent No. 1 has also been assailed on the ground that it was not recorded which of the alleged workmen had actually worked and completed 240 days of continuous service. He submits that delay of about 9 years has not been explained and the dispute could not have been referred as it had become State . He submits that respondent No. 1 has failed to explain that there was relationship of employer and employee between the Board and respondent No. 2, who was a muster roll employee and as such paying retrenchment compensation does not arise merely because the respondent-workmen had produced forged certificates of working and that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that fraud has been played by the workmen in collusion with then Executive Engineer. The question whether the Labour Court has committed illegality in the award depends upon the evidence and document on record of working of the workmen, i.e. the certificates issued by Shri B.L. Prasad.;